Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1279 - HC - Companies LawTime limitation - Non-compliance with the appointment of whole-time Company Secretary - complaint not launched within a period of six months from the date of commission of the offence - HELD THAT:- The consent or sanction as has been referred to in sub-clause 3 of Section 470 of Cr.P.C. relates to consent or sanction which is obtained under the Statute itself. Here in this case, to prosecute a person for offence punishable under Section 383(1A) of the Companies Act, neither any consent nor any sanction from the Central Government is required. It may be true that on the administrative side permission is obtained from the Central Government to launch prosecution, but that permission cannot be equated to a consent or sanction to be obtained statutorily as referred to under sub-section 3 of Section 470 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, this period cannot be excluded at all from the period of limitation. If it is done, obviously the complaint is barred by limitation because the complaint was not launched within six months atleast from 27.04.2005, the day when stay order was vacated. Admittedly the complaint was launched only in the year 2006, thus the prosecution is barred by limitation. Therefore, the proceedings is liable to be quashed. Petition allowed.
|